|
|
| Author |
Message |
zengrenouille
Joined: Aug 1, 2007
Location: Sharon, PA
Posts: 10371
|
 Posted: February 26, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GinnyX wrote: |
| bitterhope wrote: |
| I liked the scene except for the part where Ron's patronus dropped over a student (neville i guess) Patronuses arent supposed to be i solid form... |
Those film makers are so inconsistant with the books... it drives me crazy. |
What drives me even crazier is that they are so inconsistent with each other. There is no direction from one film to the next, except with the first two.
_________________
Please support the Diabetes Walk |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ron.hearts.hermione
Joined: Feb 5, 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: February 27, 2008 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| zengrenouille wrote: |
| GinnyX wrote: |
| bitterhope wrote: |
| I liked the scene except for the part where Ron's patronus dropped over a student (neville i guess) Patronuses arent supposed to be i solid form... |
Those film makers are so inconsistant with the books... it drives me crazy. |
What drives me even crazier is that they are so inconsistent with each other. There is no direction from one film to the next, except with the first two. |
So true. I just watched the first two movies and I never realised that there was this continuity between the two and how it was all lost in the 3rd and 4th movie.
However, from memory, Yates says he wants to tie in all the 5 previous movies and which is probably why they recently filmed at Gloucester Cathedral (the Cathedral was only used in the first two films).
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhoenixBaby
Joined: Mar 2, 2008
Location: England!
Posts: 67
|
| Posted: March 2, 2008 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
The consistancy in film 1&2 comes from it being the same director. in film 3 there was another director, he had as different view on the film/books than the first director. then for film 4, there was another director.. he agan had his own views and view of the book. this is why it is inconsistant. there've been so many directors all with a different view in his mind..
PhoenixBaby |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
barrytrotter
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Location: In the Ford Anglia Production Centre
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: March 27, 2008 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| i agree the patronuses scene was well done but Ron's jack russell patronus looked more the size of a labrador. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
missLM
Joined: Feb 26, 2008
Location: Melbourne, Aus
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: March 27, 2008 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I thought the patronuses were something they did get right unlike some other things COUGH VOLDEMORT'S EYES COUGH. But yeah... patronuses looked very good. 
_________________
Real, friikeh naughty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nicholas Flamell
Joined: Aug 20, 2008
Location: Washington State
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: August 30, 2008 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
i kno dat was one of my favorite parts of the movie.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aaron
Joined: Sep 6, 2008
Posts: 91
|
| Posted: September 8, 2008 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bitterhope wrote: |
| I liked the scene except for the part where Ron's patronus dropped over a student (neville i guess) Patronuses arent supposed to be i solid form... |
Perhaps a corporeal patronus is not "solid" per se, but Harry did pat his in the books (I believe PoA). I actually don't recall ever reading that a corporeal patronus is not solid. Please give a citation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Rules
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
